Thread: The Veritas Small BU Smoother - reviewed

That is probably the most comprehensive review on a plane I've ever read.

I'm glad a pro such as yourself micro micro back bevels too. I felt so guilty before.

Comprehensive is the word! You certainly put in a mighty effort on these reviews, Derek.

However, I must take issue with one statement, that the back-bevel "increases relief angle". ??? In my geometry, it has to decrease relief, i.e. the angle between the rear of the blade & the wood becomes smaller. With only 12 degrees of clearance to begin with, I think this is not a good idea, in general. You probably get away with it more because you tend to gnaw away at that incompressible stuff you westerners call wood...

Frankly, I just can't see any advantage in mucking about with back bevels, unless you are desperate to increase the cutting angle of a BD plane, or have a poorly-lapped back to begin with. Wear bevels are pretty small things, after all, & should be removed during normal re-honing. If you first re-form the initial bevel on whatever grade of stone you prefer (I use a fine diamond plate), until you get a slight burr on the back, then proceed through however many finer grades you favour to your final edge, the wear bevel should be long gone by the time you are ready to put the blade back in the plane!

And I guess you & I will continue to disagree about LVs upright handles. For me, the 'tote' angle is determined by my planing style & bench height. I want a tote angle that has my wrist 'straight' when aplying the force, not turned up, as it is with the regular LV handles. To get the plane up high enough for my wrist to feel right, the work is too high, and I am pushing the plane with arm muscles, & little contribution from shoulders & body - ok for you strapping young blokes, but too quickly tiring for a worn-out old codger like me. The angle of the old Stanley totes was not arrived at by chance - it was pretty standard for a very long time, when hand-planing was a much more practised art than nowadays.....

The more forward-angled handle also allows me to bear down a bit more on the back of the plane once it is fully on the work. I hold the front knob with a flat palm grip, unlike any of the options you show in your review. In fact I hardly 'hold' it at all, just press down on it as the cut is commenced, then ease off progressively until I am applying no pressure at all as the toe reaches the end of the board. This is the way one of my old manual-training teachers showed us to get a flat surface on a short board, but I do it as a matter of course when planing any length. I DO like LV's broad, flat-topped knobs, because they suit that style well.

But we are all different animals, and as you advocate, a little modification to suit ourselves never goes astray on any tool. Viva la difference!

Cheers,

Great review Derek - very informative.

As a keen BU plane user, I'm reassured that I have arrived at an almost identical sharpening regime, in my case 1000 grit Sigma, followed by 5000,12000 Shapton M5 (couldn't afford the Pro stones....). I've been using the ruler trick for the backs of blades for a long time, but as you point out it isn't really a back bevel, just a quicker way of getting the narrow cutting region of the back up to the same finish as the front. The angle introduced by this process is so tiny as to be negligible; in fact I make it even more so as I use a thin strip of mylar cut from an OHP transparency in place of the steel ruler. The mylar is hard, thin, and cheap to replace. This procedure gets around the chronic stiction problems encountered when trying to flatten larger areas on very fine stones. I've never found a soap additive that really helps much, so will have to try dishwasher liquid as you suggest !

I also have to agree with your comments re. the surface finish of Veritas blades as delivered. They really are astoundingly flat, and have just been getting better and better over the past few years. The same cannot be said for LN - I only own a couple of LN block planes, and in both cases the blades required extensive work on a 1000 grit stone to get them flat. I know LN play on the "traditional heirloom tools" thing, but it might be time to introduce some modern machining/surface finishing practices guys?

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

Great review Derek - very informative.

I've never found a soap additive that really helps much, so will have to try dishwasher liquid as you suggest !

As less of us do photo processing some chemicals can be hard to find but the "wetting or anti-spotting agent" used in hand developing of film is the finest wettest detergent you can find

All sort of uses

Mine is from Ilford in England - but I have used American Kodak and German Agfa in the past

Neil

Neil - hadn't heard of that one, but you set me thinking.

We have some wetting agent (sort of detergenty stuff) used as an additive for herbicides - makes Roundup work much better. Might give that a try.

I never had much luck with soaps or dishwashing liquid. I remember trying to flatten the back of a small spokeshave blade on a 5000 Shapton; it literally stopped in a few seconds and welded itself to the stone ! I had to let the whole lot dry out, then use a razor blade to pop the seal between blade and stone.

"Soap is good, m'kay...."

Same here with little luck with LDD. Have ditched the finer Shapton Glasstones that were most prone to it but have just re-encountered it with a Titan 1" firmer on a Sigma Power #8000 for the first time and can only put that down to the nature of its steel and the way that interacts with the stone. Yes Derek, I'll play around more with the 'watering' ;-}

And I wonder what effect LDD might have on 'ceramic' stones that aren't baked.

Any case, thanks Derek for a thorough review. Have filed your tip on adjusting the V. Mark II jig to keep the blade square; been having trouble with that clamping that 1" firmer.

One question: I'm having trouble understanding how putting a back bevel on a BU blade eliminates the threat of a wear bevel forming. Had assumed that a wear bevel forms on both the planes that form the edge.

One question: I'm having trouble understanding how putting a back bevel on a BU blade eliminates the threat of a wear bevel forming. Had assumed that a wear bevel forms on both the planes that form the edge.

Hi Ern

Wear occurs on both sides of the bevel. The theory goes that most of this is on the underside of the blade, and is partly related to springback of wood fibres. With BD plane blades most of the wear would occur on the bevel face. This is easy to remove as one simply hones this area when sharpening. However, with BU plane blades, the wear is on the back of the blade and, if left, will decrease the relief angle.

For years I got along very well by stropping the back of the BU blade as I worked. I wouldn't have known if there was a wear bevel around unless it came up and introduced itself. Either my stropping sorted it out before it incurred, or it does not exist in the way that Larry Williams (Old Street Planes), its main voice, is said to be. It is hard to dispute the theory, and there is evidence that the wear bevel does form ... but to the extent that Larry argues? I just do not know. He is hard to believe since his opinions are far from objective - he hates BU planes with a vengance. We have debated this issue on many, many occasions on many forums. Anyway, there is a simple solution - add a bevel which can be honed in the same way as the face bevel. The Ruler Trick adds about 2/3 of one degree using the average 1mm thick steel rule on a 3" wide stone. Not only does this not interfere with the relief angle, it is a bevel that is repeatable, almost imperceptible, and maintains the back of the blade. Simple. Takes 10 seconds. No special set up. Done.

Regards from Perth

Derek

However, I must take issue with one statement, that the back-bevel "increases relief angle". ??? In my geometry, it has to decrease relief, i.e. the angle between the rear of the blade & the wood becomes smaller. With only 12 degrees of clearance to begin with, I think this is not a good idea, in general. You probably get away with it more because you tend to gnaw away at that incompressible stuff you westerners call wood...

Hi Ian

I hope the above is a part answer for you. I do accept that I mixed up "decrease" and "increase" - but you should know by know I am spatially challenged!

Anyway, the RT does not decrease the relief angle significantly, using 2/3 of one degree. Rob Lee's dad wrote about the degrees of clearance, but noted that only 6 or 7 degrees were needed. With 12 to start (the bed angle), there is a bit to spare.

And I guess you & I will continue to disagree about LVs upright handles. For me, the 'tote' angle is determined by my planing style & bench height. I want a tote angle that has my wrist 'straight' when aplying the force, not turned up, as it is with the regular LV handles. To get the plane up high enough for my wrist to feel right, the work is too high, and I am pushing the plane with arm muscles, & little contribution from shoulders & body - ok for you strapping young blokes, but too quickly tiring for a worn-out old codger like me. The angle of the old Stanley totes was not arrived at by chance - it was pretty standard for a very long time, when hand-planing was a much more practised art than nowadays.....

No, we have never disagreed here. In fact I was the one to write this idea in one of my reviews (of the BUS perhaps?). I do now consider that it is more than just this. Bench height is just one factor involved. Another is the forces exerted over the mouth and toe by the angle of the blade - further forward adds more resistance. More vertical reduces the resistance.

The more forward-angled handle also allows me to bear down a bit more on the back of the plane once it is fully on the work. I hold the front knob with a flat palm grip, unlike any of the options you show in your review.

There, you have said it yourself.

Incidentally, the illustrations were of the fingers and not the thumb. I did say this - perhaps not explaining the significance clearly enough.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek

Thanks for the very informative review.
I am not a BU bench plane user as most of my planes are either old Stanleys or home made wooden planes. Since these all appear to perform to the same level as you mention giving a smooth glossy finish suitable to apply a finish off the plane or with a quick touch up with a scraper or 400 grit paper. When i strike a difficult piece of wood I simply use a back bevel to provide York Middle or Half pitch and failing that switch to a scraper plane.

I don't claim that the system I ( & lots of others ) use is the best but it works for me & I don't see sufficient incentive to pay for a new set of BU planes.

I agree with you that both sides of the blades wear, but is this not simply controlled by regular sharpening which would make the back bevel redundant excepting when you need to increase the pitch of the blade for difficult wood.

Regards

Originally Posted by IanW

snip
Frankly, I just can't see any advantage in mucking about with back bevels, unless you are desperate to increase the cutting angle of a BD plane, or have a poorly-lapped back to begin with. Wear bevels are pretty small things, after all, & should be removed during normal re-honing. If you first re-form the initial bevel on whatever grade of stone you prefer (I use a fine diamond plate), until you get a slight burr on the back, then proceed through however many finer grades you favour to your final edge, the wear bevel should be long gone by the time you are ready to put the blade back in the plane!

Originally Posted by Basilg

I agree with you that both sides of the blades wear, but is this not simply controlled by regular sharpening which would make the back bevel redundant excepting when you need to increase the pitch of the blade for difficult wood.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Wear occurs on both sides of the bevel. The theory goes that most of this is on the underside of the blade, and is partly related to springback of wood fibres. With BD plane blades most of the wear would occur on the bevel face. This is easy to remove as one simply hones this area when sharpening. However, with BU plane blades, the wear is on the back of the blade and, if left, will decrease the relief angle. [inserted by ian]and possibly more critically render the blade "blunt" as no longer will the edge represent the junction of two plane surfaces

For years I got along very well by stropping the back of the BU blade as I worked. I wouldn't have known if there was a wear bevel around unless it came up and introduced itself. Either my stropping sorted it out before it incurred, or it does not exist in the way that Larry Williams (Old Street Planes), its main voice, is said to be. It is hard to dispute the theory, and there is evidence that the wear bevel does form ... but to the extent that Larry argues? I just do not know. He is hard to believe since his opinions are far from objective - he hates BU planes with a vengance.
snip
Anyway, there is a simple solution - add a bevel which can be honed in the same way as the face bevel. The Ruler Trick adds about 2/3 of one degree using the average 1mm thick steel rule on a 3" wide stone. Not only does this not interfere with the relief angle, it is a bevel that is repeatable, almost imperceptible, and maintains the back of the blade. Simple. Takes 10 seconds. No special set up. Done.

I'm sure that along the way I've stuffed up the above multi quote.

some previous discussion of wear on the UNDERSIDE of a BU plane blade can be found
here Sauer & Steiner: up & down - bevels that it
and here Bevel Up vs. Bevel Down edge wear [Archive] - Woodwork Forums

I rather like Derek's solution

Earlier I wrote:

The Ruler Trick adds about 2/3 of one degree using the average 1mm thick steel rule on a 3" wide stone. Not only does this not interfere with the relief angle, it is a bevel that is repeatable, almost imperceptible, and maintains the back of the blade. Simple. Takes 10 seconds. No special set up. Done.

Here is another tip for a quick honing of a blade, be it a chisel, BD or BU smoother ...

Just hone the back of the blade. Leave the bevel alone (for another time).

You can strop the back of a blade, or use your polishing stone (better as it is flat and will not dub the edge), or use the Ruler Trick on a polishing stone (or even a strop).

With BU plane blades in mind (in this thread), particularly since most are honed with a guide, which makes it difficult to do a quick refresh of the micro secondary bevel on the face ... so just do the back of the blade. This is what I have done for years. It works.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I think I need to get out more, as I don't get the argument that BU / BD is best, or different.

If you take one of each both sharpened to cut at common pitch (45 degrees)

Then BU will have a total bevel angle of 33 degrees and a clearance angle of 12 degrees

BD will have a total bevel angle of say 33 degrees and a clearance angle of 12 degrees.

So why should one be any different from the other ? I contend that they are not, and I think the evidence that Derek is getting a nice glossy smooth finish from a BU plane compared with my nice glossy smooth finish from a BD plane proves this.

Both planes are pushing a piece of steel through a piece of wood with one plane of the steel at 12 degrees to the surface of the wood and the other plane of the steel at 45 degrees to the surface of the wood.

If the pitch is changed to York or Half pitch then the total bevel angle is changed on the BU and a back bevel is applied to the BD, but the Pitch and clearance angle remain the same.

Surely, what makes the blade cut well, is the fact that the pitch angle is correct for the wood that is being cut, that there is a suitable clearance angle, and that the edge is formed by two polished surfaces meeting at a point with ( theoretically ) no thickness. The pitch is the angle formed by the total bevel angle on a bevel up blade & this can be made up of a primary and secondary bevel or any number of bevels it is the total that is the effective angle. Likewise, on the BD the pitch is the sum of the angles on the back of the blade and the back bevel.

Regards

Hi Basil

I do not see a point in debating which is best, BU or BD. That is missing the point in my opinion.

Both have a place. I can only speak for my reasons. Others may see this differently.

Most of my smoothers have high cutting angles, typically half pitch (60 degrees). This is needed to control the highly interlocked and hard timber that is prevalent in WA.

I use both BU and BD planes equally. It is easier to achieve these high angles on a BU plane. The high angle BD planes are harder to push, and I seek out those with a low centre of gravity and narrower blades (no wider than 2"), such as HNT Gordon.

I recently purchased a LN #3 with the 55 degree frog. I have the LN #4 1/2 as well, but with the 55 degree frog its 2 3/8" wide blade makes it a struggle to push. Waxing the sole helps. (Ian, I plan an article about smoother size, and these two planes will feature).

It is a testament to the superb performance achievable with BU planes on these difficult timbers that I use these planes as I am not a fan of honing with guides. I much prefer freehanding blades, and this is not practical with BU planes ... that is, not practical if you wish to include a camber on the bevel.

I see no advantage in using a BU plane at a common angle (45 degrees). This is not where its strength lies. I would rather use a BD plane, where sharpening is easier. All my middle range planes are BD.

If all your timber is straight grained and in the soft- to middle hardness range, then you are not faced with the above decisions. A Stanley with a sharp blade with smooth Pine or any other easy wood as well as a Holtey.

BU planes are also preferred on end grain. Not just block planes, but planes for shooting boards, such as a LA Jack. Yes you can use a common angle, but a low angle leaves a better finish.

So it is horses for courses ...

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

snip
I see no advantage in using a BU plane at a common angle (45 degrees). This is not where its strength lies. I would rather use a BD plane, where sharpening is easier. All my middle range planes are BD.

hi Derek,
I can see one advantage, nearly all of the BU planes have a moveable toe piece -- this makes adjusting the mouth opening quicker and simplier than for a BD plane, even a bed rock model